Forum:2013-05-31 (Friday)
Discussion for comic for . ( ) ---- Time to update you Kickstarter pledge. They have updated the list of add-ons--if you want any patches add money to your pledge. Argadi (talk) 01:31, May 31, 2013 (UTC) Friday's page is up on Live Journal, if you want to see it. AndyAB99 (talk) 01:39, May 31, 2013 (UTC) Assuming Mechaniscburg is moving in normal time. Within 10 minutes of being stabbed, Dr Sun would be on the scene. And while his knowledge of toxicology may or may not be up to Sturmvorous/Smoke Knight standards, I'm sure he can come up with something. Also, a little oops in the very last frame. -- Br'fin (talk) 04:20, May 31, 2013 (UTC) : uhmm, isn't dr sun on castle wulfenbach? after all, the baron was debating whether he should take him along (and decided against it). and if he is there, i doubt anyone who knows of tarvek's situation could get him to come down that fast (with the possible exception of the baron, who's probably not willing to help tarvek, though). Finn MacCool (talk) 13:00, May 31, 2013 (UTC) :: Good point. Dr. Sun was in Mechanicsburg when the dropwalls showed up. But Klaus does consider taking him, so he probably left the town. AndyAB99 (talk) 15:04, May 31, 2013 (UTC) Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding events, his robo-hand just got continuity errored out of existance in the last panel there. Infact, now that I've bothered to look immediately above where I'm typing I see I'm not the first one to notice this. Dreadhead (talk) 04:55, May 31, 2013 (UTC) : There's a very annoyed entry on the Girl Genius Webcomic facebook page including two expletives. It won't be fixed soon as Kaja is gallivanting. Argadi (talk) 09:52, May 31, 2013 (UTC) : Since they have time to think about it I hope they end up retconning it instead of patching it: off screen minion, skin-glove, robo-hand holding rigamortified bio-hand that is stuck around cork-screw - so many options. 18:55, May 31, 2013 (UTC) AAANND....so much for Tweedle establishing trust. AndyAB99 (talk) 10:02, May 31, 2013 (UTC) '"Oh, Martellus, why does every ''lab you design have so many ''shackles?" I swear, some people ask the stupidest questions.' Tweedle was right; at least he's up front about it all. HeterodyneGirl (talk) 13:45, May 31, 2013 (UTC) I interpreted this page pretty much as an implicit confirmation that time was running much more slowly in Mechanicssburg. Of course I've been wrong before.Tkela (talk) 17:33, May 31, 2013 (UTC) : Can you elaborate on that? I don't see it. Unless you're refering to Tarvek surviving because Tweedles three days won't be Tarveks thirty minutes. But that's just your interpretation that Tarvek isn't the "beloved character" rumored to die by the authors. AndyAB99 (talk) 01:03, June 1, 2013 (UTC) This obviously confirms that time travel is or already has become a part of this story. Tweedle used a kind of knife, a "nullabist knife", on Tarvek that pretty much assures that there is no chance of him being revived. It liquifies the body so even if anyone were inclined to revivify him, there is no body to work on.-- Billy Catringer (talk) 18:49, May 31, 2013 (UTC) :As I've chosen young Prince Sturmvoraus as my avatar I feel obliged to chime in with a somewhat haphazard chain of ruminations bearing on the question "What has happened / will happen to Tarvek, and what does it mean for the GirlGenius plot?" :#'Will Tarvek live or die?' Well, everyone will die eventually. If Tarvek is as good as dead right now from being Tweedled, this means some of the main plot themes are as good as over. The most important of these is, of course, the Gil-Tarvek romantic rivalry for Agatha, but there are more. For example, only Tarvek and Zola know that the clank Anevka is Lucrezia. Tarvek's wealth of knowledge about the workings of the Other, not to mention his reverse-engineering of van Rijn's work, are lost. If Tarvek is alive, these plot themes are on suspension until he's brought back. This can only happen if :#'Has the time flow of the novel been altered?' I know a lot of people are convinced that the time in Mechanicsburg has slowed down, and there are tantalizing hints to this effect ( , etc.), so after initial skepticism I now tend to favor the conjecture. But, for science's sake, this can be falsified at the stroke of a pen. I don't suggest to brainstorm about it now, but if the combination of the Wulfenbach black device & the Cathedral-Storm Refuge portal really did affect the flow of time, this may have happened in ways compatible with existing hints but incompatible with Tarvek's survival. I for one think the plot would be richer with Tarvek in it, but I'm biased. What we can say with practical certainty, however, is if Tarvek is to play any future active role in the plot, the time flow must have been altered in a way compatible with his survival. That may not seem much, but is more than we knew before we'd learned the time effects of the nullabist knife. However, even if he's out of the picture actively, Tarvek can still wreak havoc with the plot with what he's done in his lifetime. This in part depends on :#'How much of a douche is/was Tarvek, anyway?' Certainly young Sturmvoraus can appear very sympathetic, he's won me over for sure, but he is a crafty one and isn't below being outright scum. The most serious breach of trust for which we have IMO quite firm circumstantial evidence is his editing of Agatha's . For a while , and the delay between his and still needs to be explained. However, there's little doubt in my mind Tarvek tampered with the message, his game given away after he lied both , and . It was clearly in his interest to drive a wedge between Agatha and the Baron, and if he hadn't done it, he could've honestly said he didn't know who did. Further, any number of things Tarvek set in motion could eventually reveal him to have been an utter scumbag all along, and many of his fans, myself included, could come to appreciate Tweedle's point of view in bidding him good riddance. The notes Tarvek shared with Gil , but are we sure there weren't further levels of encryption? What does the supposedly anti-wasp potion really do, and What were his plans with the weasel operation, and how in the world did he manage to during his Some of these will probably turn out to be backstabbing plots even if he lives. So back to the question :#'Will Mechanicsburg be brought back, and how?' I'd say probably yes, because two central characters, besides Tarvek, most likely did not make it out -- Moloch and Othar. If The Future is ever to take place Moloch has to make it out, and Othar, well, if there's one character except Agatha without which the GirlGenius comic just wouldn't be itself, I'd say it's Othar :D. How the city will be brought back depends in part on the nature of its predicament, and in part on who else made it out in time. Higgs and Zeetha did, Gil did, the Vanamondes & the crew did not, neither did most Jägers. Theo, Sleipnir, Vole -- not sure. Edit: if the prevailling time dilation theory is correct, the prosaic strategy for bringing back the city & helping Tarvek would involve opening portals from regular time near Klaus and/or Tarvek, then intervening to neutralize the device (by disabling it or teleporting it somewhere else) & administer an antidote. Another possibility is, say, for Othar to come up with some magic from the inside that counteracts the device -- of the people left in the city, if someone can be counted on to turn around an impossibly difficult predicament in an impossibly short time, it's him. Whatever happens, we can count on one thing -- there will be unforeseen consequences. : Tarvek (talk) 19:28, May 31, 2013 (UTC) :: 1. Where are van Rijns notes? Does Klaus or Gil have them? DuMedd, Mittlemind, and Mezzasalma used Lucrezias equipment to tranfers Otilia from Von Pinn to the Improved FSMADD. Mittlemind espressed an understanding of the process. Others can do what Tarvek could but it would take longer. :: 3. Tarvek was still fighting alone against Klaus and Lucrezia. The novel states he DID tamper with the message. He was expecting the quester, not Klaus and a full assault force. He didn't anticipate the whole world seeing the message. :: telling Lucrezia the device exposes her? So she can then immediately destroy it? She did not want anyone to know she was back. And would you tell Agatha, under those circumstances, that you just screwed her? :: But he apparently told them the Baron was wasped. Scumbag? A weasel, yes. Scumbag? That's Tweedle, a total sociopath. Tarvek was using Agatha to survive. He had no choice. He had no issue with being her AndyAB99 (talk) 10:59, June 1, 2013 (UTC) ::: 1. Point taken. 3. Let me take these one by one. ::: "... he apparently told them the Baron was wasped. Scumbag? A weasel, yes." before , so the statement that the Baron was the Other was untrue at the time Tarvek inserted it into the signal. Agatha wanted Baron as an ally, admittedly naively so, and wanted him to know Lucrezia had gotten to her but that she wanted to resist her. More importantly, it was her first announcement of her existence & identity to the world. Taking this into account Tarvek (1) messed with Agatha's first announcement ever, and (2) reversed her strategic preference to ally with the Baron, however misled, behind her back, all the while (3) posing as her friend & helper. Call me old fashioned, Tarvek used Agatha as a puppet to deliver a false message that was in his interest, and denied her any agency in the matter. Even if his move can be defended strategically, which is a separate discussion, in my book what he did qualifies as scummy. ::: "telling Lucrezia the device exposes her?" I don't have a problem with this -- taken on its own, it would've worked both for Tarvek's and for Agatha's interests. Taken together with his lying to Agatha that Lucrezia messed with the message, and Tarvek comes off as a weasel (in this case, I agree with this description) playing all sides to his advantage. ::: "He didn't anticipate the whole world seeing the message." Arguable, but as I've said above, it's not so important what he anticipated because it's Agatha who designed the device, and she wanted it to be seen by as many people as possible. He tried to use her as a pawn and underestimated her -- good for her. ::: Tarvek (talk) 18:14, June 1, 2013 (UTC) :::: By altering Agathas message, YES, HE WAS USING HER - AT STURMHALTEN. Before everything went into the blender. What backstabbing, scummy, slimmy scheming to expoit Agatha has he done since? Where has Tarvek used Agatha "as a pawn" since running into her in the FSMADD room? Everyone remembers his behavior at Sturmhalten and forgets his behavior since. AndyAB99 (talk) 19:37, June 1, 2013 (UTC) ::::: Andy, I'm not forgetting this. Tarvek has acted like an exemplary friend and ally to Agatha since he got to M-burg. But, as his conversations have revealed -- this was clearly in his interest. As Chomsky once said, Stalin was in favor of free speech for ideas that he agreed with, but this doesn't mean he was in favor of free speech. A person is principled when s/he sticks to the principle even when it's against his/her interests. That's the standard, and Tarvek's behavior at Sturmhalten clearly fails it; if you have a later example that passes it, I'm listening. ::::: Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to smear the poor chap -- in fact I very much sympathize with him -- but to keep a skeptical attitude. I do agree that what Tarvek has done since Sturmhalten does a lot to make up for his tampering with the message, but IMO it does not settle the matter. Tarvek (talk) 20:08, June 1, 2013 (UTC) : Also could you elaborate on how this obviously confirms ''time travel? How does the knife do that? AndyAB99 (talk) 01:03, June 1, 2013 (UTC) ::I suppose you think me arrogant to make that statement? Don't bother answering that question because I '''am' arrogant and do not mind it when people complain. This is not my story and I am not writing it so I can understand why you question the statement I made. I shall make my case by saying that there obvious pressures outside the story that make Tarvek's sudden untimely and very ugly demise completely untenable. Most of the fans of Girl Genius love this particular character. The authors have a great deal of work invested in him and it simply makes no sense whatsoever to throw all that away just for the sake of realism. ::OTOH, there is also a good reason inside the story to assume that Tarvek's death will not go unchanged--Agatha Heterodyne is in love with him. She sees him as being one of hers. Not even death can get crossways with Agatha Heterodyne in this universe. Agatha, is the heroine. Hell will have to pay if it fails to cough up the recently deceased Tarvek Sturmvoraus! Your overly simplistic, Jack Webb "Just the facts, Ma'am" approach to story analysis is not a suitable tool for analyzing stories, especially not this one. After you have read a story for a while, you must predict what the authors are likely to do and have expectations. It is part of being a writer to induce this response in your readers. ::The knife, by making certain that Tarvek cannot be revived by the means that are ordinary to this particular universe, also makes it certain that time travel will be necessary to resolve the crisis. Agatha will be required to travel back in time in an effort to recover Tarvek along with whatever else she just lost to Baron Wulfenbach, possibly even the whole of Mechanicsburg.-- Billy Catringer (talk) 12:09, June 1, 2013 (UTC) :::I have yet to see ANYONE accurately predict exactly what the Foglios are going to do next. Maybe they just got tired of Tarvek and killed him, his knowledge be damned. They've thought up something more interesting. They have, by their own admissions, altered the path of characters and plot many times so far. It is also possible that Tweedle just THOUGHT he threw the 'nullabist knife". Maybe the Si Vales Valero treatment did something to him. :::I don't "love' Tarvek. I sympathsize with his being a tragic character. To me it is clear he can't have Agatha. I've always expected him to die before the story ends. But he genuinely cares about Agatha, as a person, not just an object. He is not a scumbag. He is not a villain. He has been Agathas ally ever since the disaster at Sturmhalten. :::You do need "just the facts" to support any hypothesis. You're extrapolating and assuming from that. AndyAB99 (talk) 13:32, June 1, 2013 (UTC) ::::Andy, I'm with you, mostly. I do however think there's something to the "'''Hell' will have to pay if it fails to cough up the recently deceased Tarvek Sturmvoraus!"'' thesis. The quest for Tarvek would make sense taking into account the current characters' dispositions and plot arcs. ::::On the other hand, just because this would make sense makes me think the Foglios will try to find a way to complicate it in a non-arbitrary way. I offered my "Tarvek can still turn out to be a scumbag" scenario as a possible way things could pan out. That's all it is, though, a speculation and not a prediction, with aim to demonstrate why, personal preferences aside, I don't think we can be sure that Tarvek "genuinely cares about Agatha, as a person, not just an object". ::::Incidentally, I agree that one needs "just the facts" to support a hypothesis, and I also think characters' dispositions and plot arcs are included in these facts. How far one is willing to speculate based on these and one's own expectations as opposed to skeptical analysis is IMO a matter of taste -- this is fiction, after all. The difference you and I, occasionally, have with Billy is one of preference of how far one wants to ride the speculation train. ::::Contrary to what Billy says, however, I think that George Martin's influence on the genre cannot be discounted, and fans are now much readier to accept a main character's demise than they were a few years ago. This is not for the sake of "realism", I don't think that was ever even GRRM's primary prupose, but precisely to shake up predictable story lines. And I must admit, this was a good place in the story for Tarvek to fall. ::::Will that really turn out to be the case? I don't think so, in part because, as I've noted under 4. above, other people from M-burg need to be recovered, in part because "hell will have to pay ...", and in part because, as Mskala points out below, "setting up circumstances that will kill the hero, but not actually sticking around to watch ... never works out well for villains." But I'm partial. Time will tell. ::::Tarvek (talk) 19:33, June 1, 2013 (UTC) :::::The main trigger to my rant was that the knife "obviously confirms" time travel. No, not necesssarily. Speculation is one thing, declaration is another. For example, if Mechanicburg is frozen in a statis field, no time is advancing in it. Agatha and friends could work out a way to enter and isolate Tarvek until they work out an antidote. No time travel required. We don't know what happened at Mechanicsburg yet. AndyAB99 (talk) 19:47, June 1, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Fair. (Edit: OTOH this was obviously a figure of speech -- albeit one that could easily trigger a science-minded reader :) ) Tarvek (talk) 20:08, June 1, 2013 (UTC) :::::: And what, pray tell is a "stasis field?" Wouldn't that have something to do with stopping time in a contained location? Is that not already a form of time travel? -- Billy Catringer (talk) 06:38, June 2, 2013 (UTC) ::::::: It seems we're arguing about meaning rather than substance. I wouldn't call a localized time slowdown or stoppage "travel". You're certainly free to do so, but then we mean different things by it, and I don't think it's terribly fruitful to argue about which one is right. Tarvek (talk) 14:37, June 2, 2013 (UTC) ::::Well, I beg to disagree! This is light fiction! It is for our personal pleasure and we should make of it whatever we will. This is a wiki concerned with a work of light fiction, not an actual encyclopedia, nor is it a work of science. Am I making educated guesses? Yes, of course I am. If that is what you mean by extrapolation, then so be it. Shall I offer you a wager on the matter? Will that make you happy? -- Billy Catringer (talk) 06:38, June 2, 2013 (UTC) ::::: Billy of course we can do with light fiction whatever we will. For me personally, the way I find meaningful & rewarding is more analytical. This is because if I just extrapolated based on my own expectations & guesses on what the authors are up to I could probably come up with five completely incompatible scenarios on the spot, which just feels too arbitrary, so I prefer to approach it more methodically. But I realize others have fun speculating, and that's great, go run away with it. Ultimately there's no right or wrong way to do it, it's a matter of taste. ::::: This, in fact, is in part why I find these discussions so charmingly dysfunctional, as intelligent people with different tastes start talking past each other. It's good to keep in mind though that if we're going to argue what's the right way to go about it, it's a waste of time. But it's good to know where the differences are. Tarvek (talk) 14:37, June 2, 2013 (UTC) :: How do we know "The Knife" exists at all? We only have Tweedle's word for its existence and effects. Do you trust Tweedle? Tweedle can reasonably guess that telling Agatha Tarvek is dead will enrage her; nothing forces him to tell her; so the consequences he intends telling her to have must include her rage - which he might reasonably want, for instance, to prevent her from thinking rationally about how to interfere with his business; and if he's telling her Tarvek is dead for the purpose of enraging her, it has very little to do with whether Tarvek is actually dead. Also, note that the old "No, Mr. Sturmvoraus, I expect you to die." routine (i.e. setting up circumstances that will kill the hero, but not actually sticking around to watch) never works out well for villains. Mskala (talk) 13:48, June 1, 2013 (UTC) ::: I don't think there is any reason to suspect the knife wasn't genuine -- we've seen its effects, what, about a half dozen times? We may not be sure whether the bodies eventually decomposed but the effects certainly were deadly, and Tweedle doesn't strike me as someone who'd bluff about how dead he'll make sure his enemies are. So while I agree he wants to keep Agatha irrational, I don't think this has to bear on whether he's lying about the knife. If a psychopath can get his way by telling the truth, then so much the better, it's less work keeping track on whom he told what. In fact, it was clearly in Tweedle's interest to off Tarvek ( ), so I'm inclined to believe he truly tried to do so in the most lethal way he could, and is now really convinced that his rival is dead and gone. I do, however, agree fully that "setting up circumstances that will kill the hero, but not actually sticking around to watch ... ''never works out well for villains". Time will tell. ::: Tarvek (talk) 19:33, June 1, 2013 (UTC) :::: At least two of those six knives are VERY unlikely to have been Nullabist knives; they were the Smoke Knight's own knives Tweedle threw back at them. The Blonde was killed with one of his, but whether it's a Nullabist can not be conclusively stated as we've only seen her dead just after being killed, not hours later. Same with Leopold, and the three remaining SK's may well have been killed by their own knives, just like #1 and #2. Stoneshop (talk) 13:41, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Someone could take parts of the pancake pictures from Bulletpoints and Pancakes and add them to the pages for Carol Monahan and Julie Haehn. (Also, final warning for the Kickstarter.) Argadi (talk) 13:04, June 1, 2013 (UTC) A couple more points regarding Tarvek's fate that came to mind. An exhaustive list of possibilities of how Tarvek could survive are as follows: #Tweedle is lying or mistaken about the effects of the nullabist knife. Not out of the question, but as I've argued just above, I think this scenario is almost in the celestial teapot category. #Tarvek gets better by himself, through his own quick action -- unlikely, as -- or natural immunity -- say, as a side-effect of Si Vales Valeo, and IMO also unlikely. #Thanks to timely help from someone else, presumably someone in Mechanicsburg at the time. More likely, as there were plenty of people with the necessary healing skills or sparkiness who could get to him in time and wanted him alive. This of course assumes that the Baron's device affected the city in some way that doesn't preclude Tarvek getting help in time. #The combination of the Device and the Portal has altered the time flow of the comic in some way compatible with Tarvek's survival. While I don't think we have "obvious confirmation" for this possibility, there are enough hints to render it plausible. As Andy argued, though, an altered time flow does not automatically also mean time ''travel. #'Edit: '''Another possibility that comes to mind, Tarvek could've figured out the Other's tech enough to have uploaded himself onto a gaslamp equivalent of a data server. This could've taken place, say, when he was in Lucrezia's lab. Then even if he's been killed now, someone could download a version of him onto another body later on. IMO this is not terribly likely, but also not implausible. Of course, it's also possible that the time flow has been altered ''and that Tarvek is dead. Andy, with this in mind -- I don't really engage with GirlGenius outside of the webcomic and this Wiki -- have the Foglios really floated a rumor about a "beloved" character's impending doom? If so, I think young Sturmvoraus' chances are much dimmer. I don't want to speculate too much about which popular character's death would make the most narrative sense but IMO Tarvek would certainly make the top 5, probably the top 3. Tarvek (talk) 02:11, June 2, 2013 (UTC) Tarvek is a Weasel: I'll remind everyone that he built a vessel for the Other, of his own free will and skill. Time Travel is Bad Storytelling: Because you can't depend on anything being permanent. Once the Bad Guys know it is possible, they will be Highly Motivated to develop the same capability. I Really Hope that the Time Window is the result of an impossible to repeat anomaly. -- SpareParts (talk) 03:01, June 2, 2013 (UTC) : Fully agreed on Time Travel = Bad Storytelling. However, in Tarvek's defense, I think his motives in building the Lunevka (Lucrezia-Anevka) clank, while certainly reproachable, are understandable. When he started working on it old Aaronev was still alive, so Tarvek wasn't exactly an independent player & felt it necessary to fully uphold family loyalties. Not a whole lot of alternatives there, what was he going to do -- throw his lot with Klaus after beeing booted off the ship? After Aaronev was gone and Lucrezia took Agatha, Tarvek's best chance for survival was to be truly indispensible to her. Then there was also the technical challenge -- while it isn't the nicest thing to do, I'd imagine one gets pretty high sparky bragging rights for making an Other-vessel on a Van Rijn design. More importantly, seeing that Tarvek left open a back door to control the Anevka clank, he probably did so with Lunevka as well. The chance to make an embodiment of the Other one actually has some control over is, as that credit card commercial goes, priceless. Tarvek (talk) 04:14, June 2, 2013 (UTC) ::I also beg to disagree with you, Tarvek, and SpareParts. Stories involving time travel are not necessarily bad stories nor is the use of time travel necessarily a bad thing to do. It all depends on the quality of the writing involved and whether or not the Author can stay in control of every little detail that a time travel story demands. Yes, the majority of stories involving time travel have been complete duds. They have been too simple or so complicated that you give up in exasperation before you can finish reading the piece. In the case of Girl Genius however, it involved time/interdimensional trave at the outset. This is not an unanticipated or unexpected development. The authors started hinting that there was something strange going on with time and/or the dimensions of the universe early in . -- Billy Catringer (talk) 06:38, June 2, 2013 (UTC) ::: True, I admit I've read my share of good time travel stories. I also think we'd agree that they're hard to pull off, and that we hope GirlGenius will do it right. Unless time travel is the whole point of the story, however, even if done well I find that it usually takes away something from the narrative. It feels a bit like cheating. But that, as so much else, is a matter of taste. Cheers. Tarvek (talk) 14:37, June 2, 2013 (UTC) (Indentation seems to have gotten somewhat mixed up above and I don't want to insert myself in middle of the prior back-and-forth, so I'll just put this all the way down here and start a fresh indent heirarchy, even though I'm refering to an earlier post, if that's ok. Anyway...) Billy, regarding Agatha's love as protection and "Not even death can get crossways with Agatha Heterodyne in this universe.", . (But I do think Tarvek will most likely be saved, at least from this attack of Tweedle's.) —Undomelin ✉ 07:18, June 3, 2013 (UTC) : Well, the Foglios killed off Lars, so killing off Tarvek is entirely possible. But to have a character this important die offstage is very bad storytelling. Bringing him back via time travel only compounds the felony. As does bringing in a new major villian this late in the narrative. I think they wrote themselves into a corner. Now they've gone back to the plot device of having Agather never ask the obvious questions. Macossay, 11:23, June 3, 2013